Taxes, Government

Because the exponential compounding of interest on debt accrued by ineffective spending ALWAYS makes things better compared to spending within one's means and not falling into a black hole of interest payments on debt.

Keynesianism has failed miserably every single time it has been tried. But let's give it another shot huh?
 
Bold text means it is true.

TRICKLE DOWN ECONOMICS WORKS!
 
Yes, actually they do. Me being rich doesn't make you poor. In fact it allows me to buy labor and material goods from the less affluent making them more affluent in the process.
 
Linking to Mother Jones for the sake of supporting an argument is almost the same as quoting Das Kapital. I'm sure you'd have a problem with me linking to CATO or Heritage charts on the same subject.

141ca.jpg
 
Last edited:
Re: Rose Kennedy Greenway

Lurker said:
The big problem with government spending is that every dollar it takes out of taxpayer pockets is one less efficiently dollar spent in the economy. There's almost never a 1:1 payback because of the overhead in collecting and dispersing tax monies, without even considering waste or corruption. Keynes multiplier is bullshit and has been proven bullshit for three quarters of a century. This is why government needs to be kept as small and to basic services as possible. Otherwise government becomes a massive drain the economy and actually hurts those it was originally meant to serve.
Click to expand...

Actually, you're partially right. You're right in the sense that the money needs to be better spent. You're wrong for assuming just because the economy right now is under performing, that the Keynesian Theory is thus false. I can easily tell you why the US government spending isn't as effective as we have hoped as I have done many times before. A large portion of the budget is being allocated in areas with low economic impact, such as the department of defense. Money spent here will normally not flow quickly from one person to another for it only benefits those in those involved in the war (research, weaponry, etc). It does not encourage growth in other economic sectors. A better way of spending this funding would be anything that could decrease cost production and increase efficiency in production.

If the fund can be spent on decreasing transaction cost between business companies and their clients such as building a faster rail service or improving phone call meetings, or expanding a high way to decrease product delivery time, this in turn decrease cost for companies involve, increase revenue, increase demand due to cost drop, and increase hiring or income. This in turn puts more money into employees to spend on other services, producing a localize economic boom in tourism, food services, hospitality, etc. Now what separates infrastructure or technological improvement than spending that targets specifically in one sector is that, being closer to a public good, almost everyone is allowed to partake in its benefit. A HSR or a better highway on the East Coast will benefit every city linked to it. A better device for communication will benefit every company that puts it to use.

While I'm not saying the war spending is the only problem, it's a prime example of why the economy is not bouncing back as fast. While many may point back on how WWII pulled the US out of the Great Depression, the difference between the two is that a greater portion was employed in the war effort and the introduction of female workers increased labor supply which increased production.

As for the stimulus package, the effect is debatable, however, the fault lies mainly on the recipient than the government itself. The problem with any stimulus package is what people do with it. Unfortunately, because of the counter-intuitive thinking during a recession (save, not spend), people save the money they received from the stimulus package. Only a small portion is spent and consumption needs to increase to prop up the economy. This is not a Keynesian Theory for those that seem to be confused. This is the basic Adam Smith's theory on the invisible hand, that spending has to go up during a recession in order for the economy to recover. It would have been slightly better if everyone is given a voucher amount that must be spent in a given time period, else the fund stays with the government. I say only slightly because the problem with this idea is that the recipient would probably defer the saving on their income instead.

However, to return to my first point, cutting taxes any lower will only exacerbate the problem. Not only will it starve the government of funds, it would force the government to make cuts to important area such as infrastructure, education, and research. It would allow many roads and public transportation systems to deteriorate which will increase transaction cost between businesses in the form of longer travel time and higher fares. This decreases economic activity and is widespread. These cuts will decrease investment in human capital, making workers less efficient and thus incur a higher cost to produce goods (decrease in revenue due to lower production). It will also decrease funding in research that could help improve physical capital (machinery) that could decrease cost by making production more efficient (faster and/or better quality) or decrease medical spending by developing new methods on allowing people to live healthier or longer lives. Cutting taxes too much will literally be a step backward in every single aspect on improving an economy.
 
Last edited:
Lurker said:
Yes, actually they do. Me being rich doesn't make you poor. In fact it allows me to buy labor and material goods from the less affluent making them more affluent in the process.
Click to expand...

Actually, not always true. Many corporations hoard the money gained by buying assets such as property, smaller companies, merging, etc., which normally results in a layoff workers (lower and more easily replaceable ones). The money then normally goes to management and only small amount actually reaches the bottom rung as the funds spent on services provided by lower classes can just as well be spent on services provided by the upper classes. If my memory serves, upper class services cost much more than lower classes and the money is split between less people. Thus, the trickle down economics rarely works.
 
KentXie said:
Actually, not always true. Many corporations hoard the money gained by buying assets such as property, smaller companies, merging, etc., which normally results in a layoff workers (lower and more easily replaceable ones). The money then normally goes to management and only small amount actually reaches the bottom rung as the funds spent on services provided by lower classes can just as well be spent on services provided by the upper classes. If my memory serves, upper class services cost much more than lower classes and the money is split between less people. Thus, the trickle down economics rarely works.
Click to expand...

Agree trickle down economics never works. The reason the economy will never bounce back until the FED raise rates, the working class needs buying power and they are the only people that create economic expansion when they have extra money in their paychecks. The working class have become debt slaves for the Super Rich & Poor. That is what is going on. Between the Bailouts in the banking industry, Car Industry, Govt Programs, War, welfare programs, and the Stimilus money the working class can't even feed themselves after an 40 hour work week never mind spend anytype of extra income on restaurants, casinos, anything FUN even sending their kids to college.
You need a strong dollar to maintain balance or ORDER in an economy for the balance between RICH & Middleclass.
Remember the 80's? when a 500 dollar work week, you could afford apartment, car, gas, plenty of food, free time at the casino. The Job market was scarce but their was plenty of room to grow as you could lower interest rates.

America will always need middleclass workers like the people that work at supermarkets who make 12-15 dollars an hour which work very hard. They are bloodline that keep this country flowing like honey bees. The problem is our GOVT has gutted the American Worker to nothing and they have teamed up with the Federal Reserve to try to create a world currency since they bankrupt the entire system. Since the bankers own both political classes.
That is what is going on.

Just look what happened when the U.S. hired Bin Laden to hold off Russia in Afgan.
America bankrupted Russia when they went to war with Afganstan and now we are fighting the entire middle east. Gee, it doesn't take commonsense to realize what is going on here. We fell into the same trap Russia did and now we will face the same fate.

Kentxie, The private Federal Reserve runs this country not our political hacks. They are puppets to the Masters. Who are the Masters I would say whoever owns the Federal Reserve. A world currency is in the works and that is the end game. That is how I see this playing out.

The working class Americans are the key to the foundation of America. The Federal Reserve was created to keep balance in the system and to maintain a strong currency. Since the the start the dollar has depreciated 95% of its worth.
 
Last edited:
Lurker said:
Linking to Mother Jones for the sake of supporting an argument is almost the same as quoting Das Kapital. I'm sure you'd have a problem with me linking to CATO or Heritage charts on the same subject.
Click to expand...

Depends. I'd mostly ignore the words and just look at the charts (and check their sources, which you can do too).
 
L.A. NOW

Southern California -- this just in


Stockton bankruptcy: Other California cities concerned


June 27, 2012 | 3:54pm

City managers in Southern California are casting a wary eye on Stockton, the latest municipality to be headed toward bankruptcy court after spending on civic projects and labor costs accelerated far past its ability to pay its bills.

Many city officials say they don’t like what they see coming out of the Central Valley port city. But finance managers are quick to emphasize that, while suffering their own financial pinches, the draconian course taken by Stockton's City Council on Tuesday won’t be necessary at home.

"We are in tremendous pain. Our citizens are feeling the loss of services," said John Gross, finance director of Long Beach. "But that’s a big difference from Stockton."

While Stockton's troubles arose from a combination of spending on new civic projects, higher labor costs and steeply lower taxes, local governments everywhere are reeling from similar problems.

Long Beach has renegotiated contracts with its police and fire unions that will reduce current pension costs by hundreds of thousands of dollars each year, Gross said. In addition, retirement plans for new hires will be less generous.

It's still in negotiations with the city's other unionized workers, hoping to come up with savings that will stave off $16 million in cuts for the coming year, Gross said. The city has already laid off police officers and firefighters, cut library hours and doesn’t fill potholes as frequently as in the past, he said.

Stockton is a lesson in what can happen if the city doesn’t continue making adjustments to match lowered revenues — something the City Council fully intends to do, no matter how painful, the finance manager said.


On Tuesday, the Stockton City Council decided to seek protection under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code and is expected to file as early as Thursday. The council took additional action to reduce costs, but still could not fill a $26-million budget deficit. It ordered a stop to bond payments, slashed employee health and retirement benefits, and adopted a day-to-day survival budget.

The painful decisions came after months of negotiations with creditors under AB 506, a new state law that requires mediation before a municipality can file for a reorganization of debt. It was the first use of the legislation, which is designed to forestall a municipal bankruptcy.

Although mediation failed, bankruptcy experts said the process provided a vigorous discussion about Stockton’s financial situation, which should help the city maintain a reasonable relationship with its creditors and avoid the string of lawsuits that Vallejo faced after it filed for bankruptcy in 2008.

Although a comprehensive solution has not been reached yet, Stockton officials said they have entered into tentative agreements with about 30% of the city’s creditors and plans are being developed to deal with city’s bond-holders.

"There are some things we can take encouragement from," said Karol Denniston, a veteran bankruptcy attorney at Schiff Hardin in San Francisco. "The City Council actions should give us hope that we can restructure our municipalities faster and cheaper, which are important goals for everyone concerned."

Working against Stockton is the second highest violent crime rate in the nation and the economic recession, which has devastated the housing market and contributed to the current budget deficit. Like its crime problem, Stockton has the second-highest foreclosure rate in the country.

"Bankruptcy is a huge drain on municipalities," Denniston said, "because they have limited ways to create more revenue."

Not only do financially strapped cities have to deal with creditors, they must reverse their economic plight and spend money on services to retain and attract residents and businesses that can maintain and increase much needed tax revenue.

"How are they going to allocate money for crime-fighting and provide services that make the city an attractive place to live and work? It won’t be easy in this climate," said Chuck Moore, a certified public accountant and turn-around specialist in Detroit at Conway MacKenzie in Detroit who has advised distressed governments.
Click to expand...


http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/06/city-managers-statewide-track-stockton-bankruptcy.html

This pretty much sums it up on what direction we are heading in.
 
This is a good thread for me to ask...

Does the passed healthcare 'reform' law sound good to ANYONE here?

There is NO cheap public option, and there isn't even a subsidized private option. There is absolutely no change in HOW insurance companies work, all we have now is a mandate that you MUST buy insurance and if you don't, you are FINED/TAXED. This benefits the poor, HOW? And the Democrats are eating it up! I don't care if you believe that universal healthcare works -- this is NOT universal healthcare! Does nobody see this?!
 
BostonUrbEx said:
This is a good thread for me to ask...

Does the passed healthcare 'reform' law sound good to ANYONE here?

There is NO cheap public option, and there isn't even a subsidized private option. There is absolutely no change in HOW insurance companies work, all we have now is a mandate that you MUST buy insurance and if you don't, you are FINED/TAXED. This benefits the poor, HOW? And the Democrats are eating it up! I don't care if you believe that universal healthcare works -- this is NOT universal healthcare! Does nobody see this?!
Click to expand...

No........ this reform will destroy America in 7years. Besides the program is actually tax. Its really bad for small businesses which the govt hired thousands of IRS agents to put the pressure on providing better coverage for their employees.

Also in the scope of things Doctors are now require to service an additional 30 Million citizens. The healthcare system will become a disaster. Poor quality because everybody has healthcare.

Did you really believe that the GOVT has your best interest. Social Security & Medicare are bankrupt.

In my opinion Obamacare threatens our freedoms more than Sept911 Incident.
Some people are also getting taxed without using the healthcare system.
So basically your required to pay a tax even without using a service. Does that sound like a free country to you?

Somebody mentioned to me that our officials are using the old cloward/piven strategy, overwhelm the system collapse & start over. This is going to be very painful for the future generations.
 
Last edited:
In the grand scheme of things, hopefully the next step will be the government pressuring and regulating insurance companies (changing "HOW" the insurance companies work), ensuring that everyone can actually get it without breaking the bank.

My favorite are all the neo-Cons they interviewed on the news who said they were so mad that they were moving to Canada.
 
TheRifleman said:
Some people are also getting taxed without using the healthcare system.
So basically your required to pay a tax even without using a service. Does that sound like a free country to you?
Click to expand...

I don't know all the intricacies of how government and taxes work, but doesn't everyone who pays taxes end up paying for some things they don't use? I'm sure some of my taxes go towards the fire department and the public school system but just because I haven't had to call the fire department and don't have children doesn't mean I am opposed to supporting those beneficial public programs. The current healthcare systems also penalizes healthy people in a way, since you pay insurance premiums for a service you may or may not use. Also, your taxes pay for medicare which is paying for someone else's healthcare already. I don't know what the answer is (and healthcare is a very complex issue) but I don't think that taxes and freedom are unable to exist at the same time.

*I was going to include your quote about Obamacare being worse than a terrorist attack that killed 3,000 innocent people but the ridiculousness of that speaks for itself.
 
Corey said:
I
*I was going to include your quote about Obamacare being worse than a terrorist attack that killed 3,000 innocent people but the ridiculousness of that speaks for itself.
Click to expand...

You hear the stories about the Fast & Furious program that Holder was incharge of?

Do you know how many people have been killed a along the American & Mexico Borders. More than the Afhan & Iraqi war combined. 47,000 Mexicans & Americans killed?
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/01/11/47000-people-killed-in-drug-violence-in-mexico/ And our Govt is selling the Druglord Kingpins our guns.

Do you really believe that the Govt taking over Healthcare can be anything but postive. Take a look at the Airports & TSA? I would rather take my chances with the Terrorists on board than take a trip and going through the Airport pat downs these days.
 
Last edited:
^^^^ Might want to check your list again. Especially the other 999 Pages to this bill

"Here’s a quick checklist of the ten worst things in the law — in addition to the individual and Medicaid mandates:

1. Employer mandate. Most companies will have to provide and pay for expensive government-determined health insurance for their employees or face federal fines.

2. Anti-conscience mandate. Religious organizations will be required to provide free sterilization, contraceptives, and abortion-inducing drugs to their employees, even if it violates their religious beliefs.

3. New and higher taxes.The law contains at least 20 new taxes totaling $500 billion that will hit medical innovators, health insurance, and even the sale of your home.

4. The Independent Payment Advisory Board. IPAB will still stand, with its rationing power over Medicare.

5. State exchanges. States will be compelled to set up vast new bureaucracies to check into our finances and families so they can hand out generous taxpayer subsidies for health insurance to families earning up to $90,000 a year.

6. Medicare payment cuts. $575 billion in payment reductions to Medicare providers and Medicare Advantage plans will cause more and more physicians to stop seeing Medicare patients, exacerbating access problems.

7. Higher health-care costs. The Kaiser Family Foundation says the average price of a family policy has risen by $2,200 during the Obama administration. The president promised premiums would be $2,500 lower by this year. Hospitals, doctors, businesses, and consumers all expect their taxes and health costs to rise under Obamacare.

8. Government control over doctor decisions.Value-based payments, quality reporting requirements, and government comparative-effectiveness boards will dictate how doctors practice medicine. Nearly half of all physicians are seriously considering leaving practice, leading to a severe doctor shortage.

9. Huge deficits. The CBO has raised its cost estimate for the law to $1.76 trillion over ten years, but that is only the opening bid as more and more people lose their job-based coverage and flood into taxpayer-subsidized insurance. At this rate, the cost will be $2 trillion, not the less than $1 trillion the president promised.

10. 159 new boards, agencies, and programs: The Obama administration will work quickly to set up as many of the law’s new bureaucracies as fast as it can so they can take root before the election.

The November elections are the last hope"

Oh yeah.....Forgot the 16,000 new IRS agents that are going to deploy for work against the United States Citizens. CHANGE..... you bet your ARSE.
 
Last edited:
BostonUrbEx said:
This is a good thread for me to ask...

Does the passed healthcare 'reform' law sound good to ANYONE here?

There is NO cheap public option, and there isn't even a subsidized private option. There is absolutely no change in HOW insurance companies work, all we have now is a mandate that you MUST buy insurance and if you don't, you are FINED/TAXED. This benefits the poor, HOW? And the Democrats are eating it up! I don't care if you believe that universal healthcare works -- this is NOT universal healthcare! Does nobody see this?!
Click to expand...

You're misinformed. This changes a lot about HOW insurance companies work. Datadyne posted a top ten, but I think an even simpler list makes this easier to digest:

1) Pre-existing conditions no longer matter. Previously, if you lost your coverage (for any reason) and were diagnosed with a catastrophic illness, you were pretty much done financially. Welcome to poverty. Even you haven't lapsed coverage, private companies were spending large sums of money to find ways to deny coverage anyway. This is no longer an issue.

2) Insurance companies now need to spend 80-85 percent of premiums on actual medical care, rather than on advertising, executive pay, lobbying, claims adjustments, etc. I like that a larger percentage of premiums will go to treatment, rather than finding ways to avoid paying for treatment. (For reference, Medicare is at about 98%. Boo inefficient government.)

3) Ability to stay on parents coverage until 26. This is a big deal. How many college graduate 27-year-olds do you know who working for the same company they worked for at 23?

4) The end of lifetime limits. Previously a person could faithfully pay for insurance for 40+ years, get sick, and be told, "Hey, sorry, but you hit your coverage limit." This is no longer an issue.

5) Closing the "donut hole." Seniors, who paid into Medicare there entire lives were forced to pay thousands of dollars, out of pocket, for prescription drugs. This will no longer be an issue.

I'm not going to go into providing coverage for the poor because that will probably derail this discussion, but I think the five things I've listed are pretty well accepted.

To be clear though, this bill is a compromise. I am a democrat, and I am not "eating it up." I'm disappointed with the bill in a number of ways (as you are), but I do recognize that it does a lot of very good things, and I recognize that my disappointments are a result of needing 60 votes to accomplish anything, and the republicans (and a few conservative democrats) filibustering the things this bill is missing.

This is a step forward. Democrats would love to add a medicare option, but this was blocked by conservatives. I'm not sure the rationale for blocking it, so long as it is an option. The main problem with most republicans is that they claim to be for an abstract 'freedom,' but this generally applies only to the second amendment and a state's ability to discriminate. I'd like the option to get my medical coverage from the government (who is very efficient in this field, and who is concerned solely with actual medical coverage), rather than some private company who is concerned solely with profit.

I think democrats in congress would be smart to introduce a bill the does this an only this. It will be blocked, of course, but it will be popular with the public. With enough pressing I think the right would need to cave on this issue.


By the way, Rifleman, it's ok not to like the bill, but when you post about Sept. 11. and the destruction of the nation to identify yourself as a overzealous dipshit. You need to fact check your list. It's full of Fox News distortion and outright lies. Think for yourself, man.
 
"Someone posted this here earlier. I'm no Donald Trump fan, but I don't think it could have been put much better than he put it.

Donald Trump

Let me get this straight . . .

We're going to be "gifted" with a health care plan we are forced to purchase and fined if we don't! Which purportedly covers at least ten million more people without adding a single new doctor, but provides for 16,000 new IRS agents, written by a committee whose chairman says he doesn't understand it, passed by a Congress that didn't read it but exempted themselves from it, and signed by a Dumbo President who smokes, with funding administered by a treasury chief who didn't pay his taxes, for which we'll be taxed for four years before any benefits take effect, by a government which has already bankrupted Social Security and Medicare, all to be overseen by a surgeon general who is obese , and financed by a country that's broke!!!!!

'What the hell could possibly go wrong?'"

PRICELESS

Justin: You must be a political favor.....that works for these democrats. Must be a BRA'er.......
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top